濮阳东方医院男科看早泄口碑很高(濮阳东方线上挂号) (今日更新中)

A federal judge in Mississippi expressed deep skepticism on Tuesday about a state law that bans abortion as early as six weeks of pregnancy, sending a signal that attempts across the country to pass near total bans on abortion might not easily withstand judicial scrutiny.During a hearing, US District Judge Carlton Reeves expressed anger at times, especially over the fact that the law has no exception for rape or incest. He pointed out that six months ago he struck down a 15-week ban and the legislature responded with an even more restrictive law, suggesting the new law "smacks of defiance" to the court."You said, 'We can't do 15 weeks so by God we will do six weeks,'" Reeves said at one point. He then rhetorically asked if the state legislature would call a special session and then pass a four-week or two-week ban.Supporters of abortion rights say the law collides with Supreme Court precedent, violating a woman's right to seek an abortion prior to viability.The hearing comes as emboldened Republican-led states across the country are attempting to push through restrictive laws with the hope of overturning or cutting back on the landmark 1973 opinion, Roe v. Wade. Similar six-week bans have been introduced in 15 states although none are currently in effect.Last fall, Reeves struck down the Mississippi law that banned abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, holding that the state was "wrong on the law" and that its Legislature's "professed interest" in women's health amounted to "pure gaslighting."Tuesday, the judge also read out loud part of the Supreme Court's 1992 ruling in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, the decision which upheld the core holding of Roe v. Wade.Reeves asked if the Supreme Court had ever sustained a "previability" ban and he noted that sometimes a woman does not even know she is pregnant as early as six weeks.At the end of arguments, just before he said he would take the case under advisement, Reeves pressed the state on the fact that the law had no exception for rape or incest."So a child who is raped at 10 or 11 -- who has not revealed to her parents that the rape has occurred... the child must bring this fetus to term under the statute?" he asked.In court papers, Hillary Schneller of the Center for Reproductive Rights, representing the Jackson Women's Health Organization, said that at six weeks "no embryo is capable of surviving for a sustained period outside the womb, with or without medical intervention." She pointed out that women who are breastfeeding or who use hormonal contraceptives may not realize they have missed a period."The Supreme Court has reaffirmed many times over nearly 50 years, and as recently as 2016, that a woman has the right to decide whether to continue her pregnancy at any point before viability," said Schneller.The law is slated to go into effect on July 1. State officials, including Thomas E. Dobbs of the Mississippi State Health Office, say it was passed to further the state's interest in regulating the medical profession in order to "promote respect for life."They acknowledge Supreme Court precedent on viability but argue that once a fetal heartbeat is detected, the "chances of the fetus surviving to full term are 95%-98%."The law is meant to "prohibit procedures that destroy the life of a whole, separate, unique living human being," the officials say in court papers. It does not amount to a total ban on abortion in part because sometimes a fetal heartbeat is not detectable until as late as 12 weeks, particularly if an abdominal ultrasound is performed, they argue.Because the bill allows for exceptions, it can't be compared to previous opinions, Mississippi argues. Since 1992, the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals "has not decided a case involving a law which prohibited some but not all abortions, and has not considered a law that restricts abortions based on the existence of a fetal heartbeat or beyond a specific gestational age," the state says."Instead of banning abortion, S.B. 2116 regulates the time period during which abortions may be performed," the filing adds. "As such, it is akin to laws regulating the time, place, or manner of speech, which have been upheld as constitutional.Asked by Reeves about the fact that the Supreme Court has yet to down a previability law, a state lawyer responded in court by saying the '"fact that it hasn't happened yet" doesn't mean that it would not.Reeves displayed a keen understanding of the current composition of the court and even made clear that he had been paying attention last week when the conservative majority struck down some 40-year-old precedent in a case unrelated to abortion. He wondered out loud if that decision, and other recent ones where the conservatives struck precedent in the area of voting rights, campaign finance and labor unions should impact his thinking. 4861

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has agreed to decide a lawsuit that threatens the Obama-era health care law, but the decision is not likely until after the 2020 election. The court said Monday it would hear an appeal by 20 mainly Democratic states of a lower court ruling that declared part of the statute unconstitutional and cast a cloud over the rest. This will be the third time the Supreme Court has heard a case over the Affordable Care Act, sometimes called Obamacare. In the other two cases, the court upheld the heart of the law. Defenders of the ACA argue that the issues raised by the case are too important to let the litigation drag on for months or years in lower courts and that the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans erred when it struck down the health law's now toothless requirement that Americans have health insurance.The new case stems from tax legislation that was passed in 2017 that left the health insurance mandate in place but eliminated the financial penalty for not buying insurance. Republican-led states then sued, claiming the removal of the mandate was unconstitutional.As the case makes its way through the court system, a major focus of the Democratic presidential race has been on what should be done to provide healthcare to the most people. Sen. Bernie Sanders has proposed “Medicare for All,” while former Vice President Joe Biden has suggested adjusting the ACA, adding a public option. 1461

A lawsuit filed against the University of California system wants colleges to stop using SAT and ACT scores in the admissions process.The lawsuit was filed Tuesday on behalf of four students and several nonprofits. It claims standardized tests are discriminatory to people with disabilities, low-income students and minorities."These discriminatory tests irreparably taint UC’s ostensibly 'holistic' admissions process," the lawsuit states. "The mere presence of the discriminatory metric of SAT and ACT scores in the UC admissions process precludes admissions officers from according proper weight to meaningful criteria, such as academic achievement and personal qualities, and requires them instead to consider criteria that act as a proxy for wealth and race and thus concentrate privilege on UC campuses."Consequently, the UC admissions process — as deliberately operated by the Regents — creates formidable barriers to access to public higher education for deserving students from low-income families, students from historically underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, and students with disabilities. The requirement that all applicants submit SAT or ACT scores systematically and unlawfully denies talented and qualified students with less accumulated advantage a fair opportunity to pursue higher education at the UC."The University of California is the largest public university system in the U.S., with 10 campuses and more than 280,000 students.The UC system said in a statement it is disappointed by the lawsuit since its officials are already making efforts to address the concern. The College Board, which administers the SAT, was also quick to respond. It said any allegation of the test being discriminatory is wrong and it focuses on combating educational inequalities.Universities across the country typically use standardized tests in their admissions processes, but some are phasing them out. The full lawsuit can be read below or by clicking 1978

Throughout the past few decades, laws and regulations protecting the rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer population have progressed quite a bit. “Several decades ago, transgender wasn’t a term,” transgender woman and LGBTQ advocate Laura Macwaters said. Macwaters says a lot has changed since the 70s and 80s. “Politicians wouldn’t talk to us,” said Macwaters. “They wouldn’t accept our money. We could be fired and kicked out, harassed and assaulted at will with hardly any protections.” Macwaters says she waited to share her true identity with others until she felt safe out in public. She honestly never thought the day would come. “It is just mind-bogglingly awesome to see all the things I never thought I would live to see. Never thought I’d live this long to begin with, much less live to see such an outwilling of support and love from people and acceptance,” Macwaters said. One organization that monitors the progression of LGBTQ rights and policies across the country is the 1027

A federal judge rejected a challenge to the Trump administration's ban on bump-fire stocks Monday.United States District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich ruled against the plaintiffs in two consolidated federal lawsuits challenging a nationwide ban on the devices and asking for an injunction to prevent the ban from going forward and being enforced.Bump-fire stocks came under scrutiny following a deadly 2017 massacre in Las Vegas, in which a gunman rigged his weapons with the devices to kill 58 people and injure nearly 900. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) responded, in part, by reconsidering its definition of machine guns to include "bump-stock-type devices."Bump stocks, also known by the brand name Slide Fire, modify rifles, 771

来源：资阳报